DON'T CONFUSE JIM HARRA WITH HMRC

 

BLOG 210

 

DON’T CONFUSE JIM HARRA WITH HMRC

 

 

I have subscribed for a long time to the magazine, Private Eye.  I like a lot of the cartoons.  It is good at investigating journalism, but I find myself increasingly questioning many of the views expressed in the magazine, particularly on HMRC which often appear to me many years out of date.

 

One good example is an article in the back (the In the City page) of a recent issue that starts, “HM Revenue and Customs was unusually quick to question whether two of boy wonder Rishi Sunak’s gimmicks to boost spending – the £1,000 per furloughed job retention bonus and the £10 “eat for Britain” dining out voucher – were value for money”.

 

Actually, HMRC did not question anything.  Jim Harra, in his role as Principal Accounting Officer to HMRC, wrote two formal letters to the Chancellor of the Exchequer which basically said, in relation to both schemes,

 

a)     there is a sound policy rationale for the proposal,

 

b)      however, as the scheme is being introduced quickly, there has been no time to obtain information to evaluate the value for money of the proposal,

 

c)      in any event, there is huge uncertainty about what the scheme will cost and what it will achieve,

 

d)      accordingly, I am unable to say whether or not it will turn out to be value for money,

 

e)      as I have a personal responsibility to ensure that HMRC uses its resources appropriately, I need a written instruction to proceed,

 

f)       I consider it entirely appropriate for you to make a judgement to proceed in the light of the economic impacts of COVID-19.

 

The Chancellor duly gave the appropriate directions pointing out that there are broader issues that he can take into account, but that Mr Harra cannot, and that there are clearly compelling economic reasons for introducing the scheme.

 

As HMRC’s traditional role is to collect money, not to hand it out – and where it does hand it out it does so as agent of the Department for Social Development – I would expect Mr Harra to write such a letter every time the Chancellor imposes a role on it that involves paying out money to the public.

 

What amused me was that the article went on to suggest that “similar questions involving far bigger numbers should be asked about the Treasury-backed Bank of England COVID-19 corporate financing facility (CCFF)…”.  Its gripe seems to be that many of the companies applying for CCFF loans are overseas companies with UK operations and it is hard to see the benefit to the UK economy of lending money to foreign companies.  Whilst I would not dissent from that proposition, the UK is bound by the EU rules on free movement of capital and the prohibition of State aid not to single out UK companies for favourable treatment.  From 1 January next, we will be able to do so.  It is sad that we cannot currently.  What I find amusing is that for the last couple of years, Private Eye has incessantly berated people like me who would like the UK to be free of ridiculous EU bureaucratic rules as being thick idiots unable to see that we have been brainwashed by the Chinese government into wanting to leave the EU, and who will instantly regret our foolishness come February.

 

Of course, I do not have a crystal ball.  I have no idea whether we will end up with a trade deal with the EU (Indeed, I fear that if we do, it will not be an attractive one), or whether the UK can survive as a trading nation as it did for several hundred years before 1973, without the benevolent aid of the EU, but I am very confident that in the medium term the country can indeed do so.

 

 

ROBERT MAAS